KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND

TECNHNOLOGY

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF CVIL AND GEO-ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN REPORT

ARYEE JESSE OFFEI

8146419
ABSTRACT

This report contains geotechnical engineering designs based on information obtained from
laboratory and field tests performed since the site investigation was conducted on the 24th of March
2023 up to the 7th of April 2023.

Among the field tests performed were 2 trial pit tests, one each at the proposed section of roadway
and the other at the proposed section of the car pack for the engineering laboratory. Moisture
content test, compaction test, Atterberg limits test, laboratory CBR test and SPT were also
conducted. However, the results from DCP, CBR test and SPT, Atterberg limit test indicate that
the in-situ soil up to at least a meter deep is generally poor and of low strength and as such would
not be able to support the expected traffic or structural loads without any improvements or
replacements. SPT and trial pit test results also indicate the presence of a high-water table.

The foundation design involves using pile groups consisting of four 300mm diameter piles spaced
at 800mm center to center.

Materials and aggregates to be used for the concrete to be used for general construction works will
be sourced from a borrow pit in Bonwire.

At the end of this document is an environmental impact assessment of all geotechnical activities
that have already taken and are to take place for the construction of the road, car park and
laboratory building.

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background to the project ......................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project objectives ...................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Scope of works .......................................................................................................... 2

1.3.1 Geotechnical investigation for laboratory building .......................................... 2

1.3.2 Geotechnical investigation for road pavement design ...................................... 2

2.0 DESK STUDY ............................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Description of the Development Site ........................................................................ 3

2.2 Topology of study area ............................................................................................. 4

2.3 Tests carried out ........................................................................................................ 5

2.4 Design and testing standards ..................................................................................... 5

3.0 FIELD RECONNAISANCE ...................................................................................... 6

3.1 Observations from field reconnaissance ................................................................... 6

4.0 TESTS PERFORMED ............................................................................................... 9

4.1 Field tests .................................................................................................................. 9

4.1.1 Trial pit test ....................................................................................................... 9

4.1.2 SPT for Laboratory building.................................................................................. 11

4.1.3 DCPT for roadway section .............................................................................. 12

4.1.4 Strati-graph ..................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Laboratory test results ............................................................................................. 14

4.2.1 Moisture content determination....................................................................... 14

4.2.2 Compaction test ............................................................................................... 14

4.1.3 Atterberg Limits and Plasticity Index .............................................................. 14

4.1.4 California Bearing Ratio Test ................................................................................. 15

ii
5.0 SOIL IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................ 16

5.1 Source of material ................................................................................................... 16

6.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN......................................................................................... 17

6.1 Expected maximum column load............................................................................ 17

6.2 Bearing Capacity for Pad Footing................................................................................. 17

6.3 Alternative Design for Pile foundations ................................................................. 18

6.3.1 Pile Specifications ........................................................................................... 19

6.3.2 Ultimate Base Capacity ................................................................................... 19

6.3.3 Ultimate Shaft Resistance ................................................................................ 19

6.3.4 Ultimate load capacity..................................................................................... 20

6.3.5 Allowable load capacity .................................................................................. 20

6.3.6 Allowable load capacity of pile group ............................................................. 20

6.3.7 Adequacy of Pile group to support column load ............................................. 21

7.0 SOURCE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS .................................................. 22

7.1 Aggregates for Pavement Sealing Works ............................................................... 24

7.2 Aggregates for Concrete mix .................................................................................. 26

7.3 Fine Aggregates ...................................................................................................... 27

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................... 29

9.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ...................................................... 30

11.0 APPENDIX................................................................................................................ 31

Appendix A – Formulas ...................................................................................................... 31

Appendix B – SPT Borehole results ................................................................................... 32

Appendix C – Compaction Curves ..................................................................................... 34

Appendix D ......................................................................................................................... 35

iii
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Satellite Image of Site for Development ................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Topology of Development Site ................................................................................. 4
Figure 3: Image of in-situ vegetation cover .............................................................................. 6
Figure 4: Elevation profile of land from engineering labs to IRAI building ............................ 7
Figure 5: Image of erosion gullies on site ................................................................................. 7
Figure 6: Image of water accumulating in ponds...................................................................... 8
Figure 7: SPT N value versus Borehole depth ........................................................................ 11
Figure 8: Stratigraph for soil underlying roadway .................................................................. 13
Figure 9: PSD of borrow material ........................................................................................... 22
Figure 10: Test results for borrow material ............................................................................ 23
Figure 11: Grading Curve for 20mm Chippings ..................................................................... 35
Figure 12: Grading Curve for 14mm Chippings ..................................................................... 35
Figure 13: Grading curve for 10mm chippings....................................................................... 36

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Soil description from trial pit tests............................................................................ 10

Table 2: CBR obtained from DCPT........................................................................................ 12
Table 3: Moisture content test results ..................................................................................... 14
Table 4: Compaction test results ............................................................................................. 14
Table 5: Atterberg Limit tests results...................................................................................... 14
Table 6: Soil classification according to USCS ...................................................................... 15
Table 7: SPT N-values and bearing capacity factors for existing soil .................................... 17
Table 8: Table showing variation of Bearing capacity with footing size at 5.5m depth ........ 17
Table 9: Variation of Bearing capacity with footing size at 5.5m depth ................................ 18
Table 10: Pile specifications ................................................................................................... 19
Table 11: Test results for 14mm chippings from Borrow pit ................................................. 24
Table 12: Test results on 10mm chippings from borrow pit ................................................... 25
Table 13: Test results of 20mm chippings from borrow pit ................................................... 26
Table 14: Test results for fine aggregates from borrow pit .................................................... 27

iv
 Table 15: Negative impacts of geotechnical activities ........................................................... 29
Table 16: Positive Impacts of geotechnical activities ............................................................. 29

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

i. TBD ~ To be determined
ii. OMC ~ Optimum Moisture Content
iii. MDD ~ Maximum Dry Density
iv. DCPT ~ Dynamic Cone Penetration Test
v. SPT ~ Standard Penetration Test
vi. IRAI ~ Integrated Rural Arts and Industry
vii. PSD ~ Particle Size Distribution
viii. USCS ~ Unified Soil Classification System

v
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the project

The Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, KNUST, Kumasi in an effort to
support the industrial and socio-economic development of Ghana is undertaking redevelopment of
its facilities; this includes the expansion of existing facilities. The site for the expansion is to the
south of the existing facilities for which a master plan has been developed. The objective of the
project is to develop the required infrastructure to support the Master Plan and develop a new Civil
Engineering laboratory to replace the existing facility built some 50 years ago. The development
will be done in two phases where phase one involves several acres of land where the full
infrastructure would be developed and phase two is anticipated to commence in the next 10 years.
Complete infrastructural services, including drainage, water supply and waste management, are
required for the entire master plan but implementation will be limited to phase one works.

The development office of KNUST, the client has commissioned a planning and architectural
consulting firm to undertake the general planning and design of the architectural aspects of the
scheme. The client has completed and approved the planning proposals and architectural designs
of the laboratory. However, the design of site layout has been partly completed as the planners are
awaiting the engineers’ advice, especially regarding the road layout and other supplementary
infrastructure. It is now required to propose conceptual engineering designs and undertake the
design of civil engineering infrastructure works for the proposed development scheme.

To this end, the client has commissioned M/s EDCIV 2023 civil groups to design the civil
engineering infrastructure works for the entire project site, emphasizing the development of phase
one works for the university in Kumasi.

1.2 Project objectives

To develop the required infrastructure to support the required infrastructure to support the Master
Plan and develop a new Civil Engineering laboratory to replace the existing facility built some 50
years ago. The components of the infrastructure works to be designed include:

❖ Detailed structural design of the Laboratory Building;

1
 ❖ Road Network, Vehicular Parking
❖ Drainage, Water Supply and Distribution Networks;
❖ Solid and Liquid Waste Management System (Sewerage networks)
❖ Any supplementary facilities

1.3 Scope of works

1.3.1 Geotechnical investigation for laboratory building

i. Carry out the appropriate geotechnical investigation to support the safe and economic
design of the foundation of the Laboratory Building.
ii. Carry out the foundation design of the Laboratory Building.
iii. Provide the necessary information about the sources and quality of construction
materials of geologic origin

1.3.2 Geotechnical investigation for road pavement design

i. Carry out the appropriate investigation to support the safe and economic design of the
pavement of the road network and parking areas.
ii. Provide the necessary information about the sources and quality of construction
materials of geologic origin required

2
2.0 DESK STUDY

2.1 Description of the Development Site

The site ranges from the old engineering laboratories past the Bibini stream to the disability center
and is bordered on the east and west by P.V. Obeng Avenue and the walls between KNUST campus
and Kotei.

DCP tests were performed along the sections where the new roads will be constructed and also at
the car park.

Boreholes were drilled at five locations within the area where the new engineering laboratory will
be constructed

Figure 1: Satellite Image of Site for Development

Two trial pit tests were conducted, one at the proposed location for the roadway and the other at
the proposed section of the car park.

3
2.2 Topology of study area

The proposed site for the development of the new engineering laboratory is located in a valley that
is oriented east to west. The lowest point is 243m above sea level. The old engineering laboratories
which are about 100m north of the river are at an elevation from 247m to 257m and the Faculty of
ARTS building about 250m south is at an elevation of about 261m above sea level.

Figure 2: Topology of Development Site

4
2.3 Tests carried out

The following tests were carried out in-situ:

❖ Dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT) to determine the in-situ subgrade strength for the
road pavement.
❖ Trial pitting to observe the changes in strata, the extent of weathering and the existence of
any shear planes. Samples from trial pit will be collected for laboratory testing.
❖ Standard penetration test (SPT) to determine various characteristics of the sub surface
layers (i.e., bearing capacity at various depths, clays), the height of water table

The following laboratory tests were carried out:

❖ Atterberg limit test

❖ Particle size distribution test
❖ Compaction test
❖ California bearing ratio test

2.4 Design and testing standards

❖ American association of state and highway officials (AASHTO)

❖ The unified soil classification system (USCS)
❖ BS 5930: Code of practice for ground investigations
❖ BS 1377: Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes
❖ American society for testing materials (ASTM)
❖ The Casagrande extended soil classification system

5
3.0 FIELD RECONNAISANCE

The reconnaissance survey of the site for the proposed lab project was conducted on the 24 th of
February, 2023.

3.1 Observations from field reconnaissance

❖ Most of the land area is used for farming and is covered in various crops and other forms of
vegetation. Crops like lettuce and cassava are grown in the area; the other vegetation on the
land is mostly grasses and shallow rooted trees like plantain and a few deep-rooted trees.

Figure 3: Image of in-situ vegetation cover

❖ The area is low lying and forms a valley between the old engineering laboratories and the
Industrial rural arts building

6
 Figure 4: Elevation profile of land from engineering labs to IRAI building

❖ There were sightings of massive gullies formed from erosion by water exposing underground
pipes

Figure 5: Image of erosion gullies on site

7
❖ Accumulation of water in ponds, which may indicate high water table

Figure 6: Image of water accumulating in ponds

8
4.0 TESTS PERFORMED

This section contains a summary of geotechnical information obtained from performing the
following tests on site and in the lab:

1. Trial pit test

1. Field tests {
2. Dynamic cone penetration test

1. Moisture content determination

2. Particle size distribution test (PSD)

2. Lab tests
3. Atterberg Limit test

{ 4. Compaction test

4.1 Field tests

The following were conducted on site and are more reflective of actual in-situ properties of the
soil.

4.1.1 Trial pit test

Two trial pits were dug where pit 1 was dug at the proposed location of the roadway and pit 2 was
dug at the proposed location of the car park for the engineering laboratory. In both pits, the walls
of excavation were crumbling. Although no groundwater was encountered in trial pit two, the soil
in the bottommost layer was wet which indicates that the groundwater level may be dynamic.

9
 Table 1: Soil description from trial pit tests

Coordinates Ground No. of

Trial Dimensions Layer
water identified Layer Description
Pit ID (L×B×H) in m E N ID
depth soil strata
Damp, loose, greyish
1 brown, sandy silt
with plant roots
Damp, loose,
1 1.5 × 1 × 1.2 658596.04 737552.73 1m 3 2 yellowish dark
brown, clayey sand
Moist, soft, reddish
3 brown with grey,
sand clay
Moist, loose, Light
1
brown, silty sand
2 1.5 × 1 × 1 658479.59 737527.17 N.E 2
Wet, loose, dark
2
brown, silty sand

10
4.1.2 SPT for Laboratory building

SPT N-value
0 20 40 60 80
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Depth (m)

8
9 BH1
10 BH2
11 BH3
12
Average n-value
13
Refusal
14
BH4
15
BH5
16

Figure 7: SPT N value versus Borehole depth

The graph above illustrates how the strength of the existing soil varies from 1m below the surface
to 15m below the surface. Higher N-Value indicates higher strength. Refusal for SPT was 50
blows. The highest level of Groundwater recorded static and dynamic combined was at 2m below
the surface. We can infer from the graph that up 10m below the surface, the soils are weak since
the all have N-values less than 20

11
4.1.3 DCPT for roadway section

The 8 DCP tests were conducted along the stretch of the proposed road. The lowest CBR
determined for the first layer of soil was 3% and the highest was 8%. For the next layer, the
minimum was 2% and maximum 5% and for the 3rd underlying layer which did not reveal itself at
all points had its lowest CBR to be 4% and highest to be 8%.

Table 2: CBR obtained from DCPT

Layer
DCP Layer
Thickness D - Value CBR
Point ID
[mm]
1 500 80.12 3
1
2 400 50.00 5
1 300 41.38 6
2 2 300 100.00 2
3 300 50.00 5
1 400 64.66 4
3
2 500 38.39 6
1 200 32.14 8
4 2 500 41.99 6
3 200 32.14 8
1 400 43.23 6
5 2 300 100.00 2
3 200 64.29 4
1 400 65.69 4
6 2 300 100.00 2
3 200 50.00 5
1 400 35.00 7
7 2 300 100.00 2
3 200 64.29 4
1 400 72 3
8 2 300 51.08 5
3 200 54.29 4

12
4.1.4 Strati-graph

The following graph represents the organization and thicknesses of the different soil layer
encountered during DCP test

Chainage
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0

100
Depth below surface in mm

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900
Lower Bound of Layer Surface

Figure 8: Stratigraph for soil underlying roadway

13
4.2 Laboratory test results

4.2.1 Moisture content determination

The following moisture contents represent the existing moisture contents of the soils as they
were on site.

Table 3: Moisture content test results

Sample from Layer ID Depth (m) Moisture Content

Layer 2 0.18 - 0.84 13.85

Trial Pit 1
Layer 3 0.84 - 1.2 16.33
Layer 1 0.0 - 0.49 20.99
Trial Pit 2
Layer 2 0.49 - 1.0 21.07
4.2.2 Compaction test

This is a modified proctor compaction test, with a hammer weight of 6.782Kg falling through
470mm.

Table 4: Compaction test results

Maximum dry density Optimum moisture

Sample from Layers Depth (m)
[Kg/m3] content [%]
Layer 2 0.18 - 0.84 2198 8.78
Trial Pit 1
Layer 3 0.84 - 1.2 2095 9.85
Layer 1 0.00 - 0.49 ND ND
Trial Pit 2
Layer 2 0.49 - 1.00 ND ND
4.1.3 Atterberg Limits and Plasticity Index

The soil in trial Layer 2 of trial pit 1 has plasticity index of 13 and that of layer 3 from the same
pit is 17, These soils would be regarded as highly expansive since PI > 12.

Table 5: Atterberg Limit tests results

Trial Pit 1 Trial Pit 1 Trial Pit 2 Trial Pit 2

Sample from Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 1 Layer 2
[0.18 - 0.84m] [0.84 - 1.2m] [0.00 - 0.49m] [0.49 – 1.00m]
Type of test
Liquid Limit 26.61 34.4 22.4 23.08
Plastic Limit 13.72 17.35 - -
Plasticity index 13 17 NP NP

14
4.1.3.1 Soil classification according to USCS

Table 6: Soil classification according to USCS

Trial Pit 1 Trial Pit 1 Trial Pit 2 Trial Pit 2

Sample from
Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 1 Layer 2

Liquid Limit 26.61 34.4 22.4 23.08

Plasticity index 12.89 17.05 NP NP
Classification CL CL NP NP

4.1.4 California Bearing Ratio Test

This test was performed in accordance with BS 1377, with a loading speed of 1.0 mm/min.
Proving ring constant is 0.02.

Sample from Thickness [m] CBR [%]

Trial Pit 1, Layer 2 0.18 – 0.84 10
Trial Pit 1, Layer 3 0.84 – 1.20 8
Trial Pit 2, Layer 1 0.00 – 0.49 6
Trial Pit 2, Layer 2 0.49 – 1.00 9

Laboratory California Bearing Ratio Test

2.50

1.92KN
2.00
Force in KN

1.50 1.32KN

1.00

0.50

0.00 2.5mm 5mm

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Penetration in mm

15
5.0 SOIL IMPROVEMENTS

It can be observed from lab and field tests that the soil is not adequate in-situ is not adequate for
the construction of the roadways and the building. The soil be replaced by a higher quality soil up
to 3m deep for the laboratory building.

5.1 Source of material

The material will be sourced from a borrow pit located at Bonwire. It is located at 60 48’06” N, 1
0 27’47” W, which is about 23km form the project site about 40min drive.

16
6.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN

The ultimate bearing capacity of the pad footing was determine using Terzaghi’s bearing
capacity equation.

𝑞𝑢 = 𝑐𝑁𝑐 + 𝛾𝐷𝑓 𝑁𝑞 + 0.5𝐵𝛾𝑁𝛾 − − − (1)

6.1 Expected maximum column load

The maximum expected load from the laboratory building columns as provided by the structural
consultant is 2.0MN. The smallest pad footing will therefore be designed to be able to support this
maximum load. A factor of safety of 2 will be applied to ultimate bearing capacity to obtain the
allowable bearing capacity.

6.2 Bearing Capacity for Pad Footing

Table 7: SPT N-values and bearing capacity factors for existing soil

Depth Average Correction Corrected Unit weight

Nc Nq Ny
in m n-value factor N-Value in kN/m3

1 9 1.4364 15 18.07 52.64 36.5 38.04

2 4 1.197 3 14.14 37.16 22.46 19.13
3 8 1.197 4 16.81 52.64 36.5 38.04
5.12 7 1.4364 7 16.49 48.09 32.23 31.94
6 9 1.197 9 18.07 52.64 36.5 38.04

Table 8: Table showing variation of Bearing capacity with footing size at 5.5m depth

B qu in kN qa in kN
0.5 3305.68 1652.84
1 3679.54 1839.77
1.5 4053.40 2026.70
2 4427.27 2213.63
2.5 4801.13 2400.56
3 5174.99 2587.50

17
 Table 9: Variation of Bearing capacity with footing size at 5.5m depth

2700.00

2500.00
Allowable bearing capacity
2300.00

2100.00

1900.00

1700.00

1500.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Footing size

6.3 Alternative Design for Pile foundations

In order to determine the ultimate load capacity of a single pile, the following formula derived
from Terzaghi’s bearing capacity formula was employed

𝑃𝑢 = 𝑃𝑏𝑢 + 𝑃𝑠𝑢 − 𝑊 − − − (1)

Where Pbu is the ultimate base capacity of the single pile, Psu is the ultimate shaft capacity of the
pile and W is the weight of concrete pile.

The pile group will consist of four 300mm diameter, 6m long concrete piles spaced at 800mm
center to center. They will form two rows and two columns or piles from plan

Up to 1m of soil from the surface will be replaced with the soil from the quarry but the soil below
that will be retained and the piles will be driven through 6m of soil in total.

18
6.3.1 Pile Specifications

Table 10: Pile specifications

Weight Number Spacing

Area
Diameter Length Circumference of Pile of single of piles
Material of base
[m] [m] of base [m] [N] piles in in
[m2]
group group
Concrete 0.3 6 0.071 0.942 10 4 2

6.3.2 Ultimate Base Capacity

The ultimate Base Capacity of a single pile is determined by the relation below:

𝑃𝑏𝑢 = 𝐴𝑏 (𝑐𝑁𝑐 + 𝜎𝑣 𝑁𝑞 + 0.5𝐵𝛾𝑁𝛾 ) − − − (2)

Assuming the soil is cohesionless, 𝑐 = 0, for the first 1m of imported soil, the values of the
parameters need to determine the base capacity of the pile are

Overburden Pressure Unit weight

Nq Nγ Df in m
(σv) in KNm-3 (γ) in KNm-3
41.44 45.41 25.9 25.9 1

For the remaining 5m of in-situ soil, the values of the parameters need to determine the base
capacity of the pile are

Overburden Pressure Unit weight

Nq Nγ Df in m
(σv) in KNm-3 (γ) in KNm-3
22.46 19.13 90 18 5

Substituting all the appropriate values into equation (2), we get ultimate base capacity of pile,
𝑃𝑏𝑢 = 3322.76𝑘𝑁 = 𝟑. 𝟑𝟐𝑴𝑵

6.3.3 Ultimate Shaft Resistance

The ultimate Base Capacity is determined by the relation below:

19
 1 5
𝑃𝑠𝑢 = ∑ 𝐶 [∫ 𝛼𝐶𝑢 + ∫ 𝛼𝐶𝑢 ] − − − (3)
0 1

Assuming the soil is cohesionless, 𝑐 = 0, for the first 1m of imported soil, the values of the
parameters need to determine the base capacity of the pile are

Depth of pile within

α Cu in [kN/m2]
Strata [m]
0 0 1

For the remaining 5m of in-situ soil, the values of the parameters need to determine the base
capacity of the pile are

Depth of pile within

α Cu in [kN/m2]
strata [m]
0.95 36 5

Substituting all the appropriate values into equation (3), we get ultimate shaft resistance of pile,
𝑃𝑠𝑢 = 161.08𝑘𝑁 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟔𝑴𝑵

6.3.4 Ultimate load capacity

Substituting the values of ultimate base capacity and shaft resistance and weight of a single pile
into equation 1, we get an ultimate load capacity, 𝑃𝑢 = 3473.85𝑘𝑁 = 𝟑. 𝟒𝟕𝑴𝑵

6.3.5 Allowable load capacity

Applying a factor of safety of 3 to the ultimate load capacity to obtain the allowable load
𝑃𝑢
capacity, 𝑃𝑎 = = 1157.95𝑘𝑁 = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟔𝑴𝑵
3

6.3.6 Allowable load capacity of pile group

𝐷
Diameter, D Spacing, s 𝜃 = tan−1( ) m n Efficiency, ε
𝑠
20
 0.3 .8 20.56 2 2 0.77

The efficiency of the pile group has been estimated to be 0.77, thus we can determine the
allowable load capacity of the pile, Pg to be

𝑃𝑔 = 𝜀 × 𝑚 × 𝑛 × 𝑃𝑎 − − − (4)

Substituting all relevant values into equation 4, we get 𝑃𝑔 = 3573.89𝑘𝑁 = 3.57𝑀𝑁 ≈ 𝟑. 𝟔𝑴𝑵

6.3.7 Adequacy of Pile group to support column load

In order for the pile to be considered adequate enough to support the maximum column load, the
condition must be satisfied, 𝑃𝑔 ≥ 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑

Since 𝑃𝑔 (3.6𝑀𝑁) = 𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝐶𝑜𝑙. 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑(3.5𝑀𝑁), the pile is adequate. Factor of safety has been
applied to ensure that pile is far from the brink of failure.

21
7.0 SOURCE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

Information about borrow pit locations around the project site was acquired from the Ghana
Highway Authority (GHA). A borrow pit located at Bonwire was selected due to its closeness to
the project site. It is located at 60 48’06” N, 1 0 27’47” W, which is about 23km from the project
site. Results of lab tests conducted on samples from the borrow by the GHA was obtained. The
results indicated that it met the required standards for Material class G60 as stated in Table 12.1,
Section 12, Natural Material Subbase and Base from the Standard Specification for Road and
Bridge Work.

Figure 9: PSD of borrow material

USCS classification

Coefficient of uniformity and coefficient of curvature respectively are, 𝐶𝑢 = 7, 𝐶𝑐 = 0.57

Soil is classified as well graded sand, with group symbol SW

22
Figure 10: Test results for borrow material

23
7.1 Aggregates for Pavement Sealing Works

A. Kanin Quarry, located near Bonwire, which is about 23km away from the site was selected.
Due to time constraints, results from lab tests conducted on samples from the quarry site was
obtained from GHA for assessment. The results shows that the materials meet the stated
specifications. Summary of the results obtained are tabulated below

Table 11: Test results for 14mm chippings from Borrow pit

Ghana Highway Authority

Regional material laboratory - Kumasi
Summary of test results on chippings (14mm)
Source of sample: A. Kanin quarry
14mm single sized
Stated
Test Results Test Method
Specification
Bulk Density
1.38g/cm3
(Kg/m³)
Flakiness Index
24.20 Max 35% EN 12620
Test

Elongation Index 11.40 Max 30% BS EN 933-3

Particle Size
Refer to Refer to Appendix
Distribution BS 812 - PART 103
Appendix D D
(Grading)
10% Fines (Dry)
162.23kN Min 160kN BS 812 - PART 111
(Standard Test)
Aggregate Impact
Value 23.40% Max 25% BS 812 - PART 112
Standard Test

Aggregate
24.90% Max 25% BS 812 PART 110
Crushing Value

Water Absorption 1.61 2.5 ASTM C 127

Los Angeles
34.1 Max 40% ASTM C131
Abrasion Value

24
 Table 12: Test results on 10mm chippings from borrow pit

Ghana Highway Authority

Regional Material Laboratory - Kumasi
Summary Of Test Results on Chippings (10mm)
Source of Sample: A. Kanin Quarry
10mm Chippings
Stated
Test Results Test Method
Specification
Bulk Density
1.30g/cm3
(Kg/m³)
Flakiness Index
34.20 Max 35% EN 12620
Test

Elongation Index 11.20 Max 30% BS EN 933-3

Particle Size
Refer to
Distribution Refer to Appendix D BS 812 - PART 103
Appendix D

10% Fines (Dry)

(Standard Test) 161.85kn Min 160kn BS 812 - PART 111

Aggregate
Impact Value 22.30% Max 25% BS 812 - PART 112

Aggregate
22.60% Max 25% BS 812 PART 110
Crushing Value

Water
2.1 2.5 ASTM C 127
Absorption

Los Angeles
21.8 Max 40% ASTM C131
Abrasion Value

25
7.2 Aggregates for Concrete mix

Chippings

Chippings for concrete mix will be sourced from A. Kanin Quarry. Summary of laboratory
results is tabulated below;

Table 13: Test results of 20mm chippings from borrow pit

Ghana Highway Authority

Regional Material Laboratory - Kumasi
Summary Of Test Results on Chippings (20mm)
Source of Sample: A. Kanin Quarry
20mm Chippings
Stated
Test Results Test Method
Specification
Bulk Density
1.36 g/cm3
(Kg/m³)
Flakiness Index
Test 13.29 Max 35% EN 12620

Elongation Index 28.12 Max 30% BS EN 933-3

Particle Size
Refer To Appendix Refer To Appendix
Distribution BS 812 - PART 103
D D
(Grading)
10% Fines (Dry)
173.16kn Min 160kn BS 812 - PART 111
(Standard Test)
Aggregate Impact
Value 23.10% Max 25% BS 812 - PART 112
Standard Test

Aggregate
25.91% Max 25% BS 812 PART 110
Crushing Value

Water Absorption 1.03 2.5 ASTM C 127

26
 Los Angeles
8.4 Max 40% ASTM C131
Abrasion Value

7.3 Fine Aggregates

Sand pits were located at areas around the project site. It was ensured that the location where
sand will be burrowed for the concrete mixes didn’t interfere with the project layout plan.
Samples were taken for lab tests and the results indicated that they meet the required
specifications. Quarry dust will be sourced from the A. Kanin Quarry. A summary of the
laboratory test results is tabulated below.

Table 14: Test results for fine aggregates from borrow pit

Ghana Highway Authority

Regional Material Laboratory - Kumasi
Test on Fine Aggregates
Source Of Sample: A. Kanin Quarry
Description: Aggregate for Concrete Works

Summarized Results: Fine Aggregate (Quarry Dust)

Reference Stated
Test Results Test Method
Specification Specification

Water absorption 1.00 GSSRB ≤ 2.5% BS EN 1097 - 6

Glass
Organic impurities ≤ glass
Standard
GSSRB Standard AASHTO T21
Colour
Colour no. 3
No.1
Fineness
Modulus 3.70 BS 882 BS 812 - PART 112

Specific gravity 2.3 BS EN 1097 - 6

Silt 1% Max 6% BS 812 - 15

Loose bulk density 1.541g/cm3 BS EN 1097 - 3

27
 Test On Fine Aggregates
Description: Aggregate For Concrete Works

Summarized Results: Fine Aggregate (Riverbed Sand)

Reference Stated Test
Test Results
Specification Specification Method

Water Absorption 2.30 GSSRB ≤ 2.5% BS EN 1097 - 6

Glass ≤ Glass
Organic
Standard GSSRB Standard AASHTO T21
Impurities
Colour No.1 Colour No. 3

Fineness BS 812 -
3.70 BS 882
Modulus PART 112

Specific Gravity 2.2 BS EN 1097 - 6

Silt 1% Max 6% BS 812 - 15

Loose Bulk
1.748g/cm3 BS EN 1097 - 3
Density

28
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The effects of the various geotechnical activities mentioned in this report on the environment are
highlighted in this chapter as well as measures to mitigate some of the adverse effects.

Table 15: Negative impacts of geotechnical activities

Activity Environmental impact Mitigation measures

Site clearing 1. Increases risk of erosion and 1. The land surface should be dressed
runoff of sediments into Bibini after clearing to reduce the amount
stream of lose sediments that could be
2. Destruction of farm beds on site transported by wind or water
3. Destruction of land vegetation 2. Portion of the cleared land should be
left for vegetation to recover
Borehole drilling 1. Noise pollution from drilling 1. Drilling shouldn’t be conducted on
equipment for SPT test weekdays during classroom learning
peak periods but instead during
weekends
2. Properly serviced equipment should
be used
Trial pitting 1. Ruining of land surface 1. Trial pits should be covered up after
investigation is complete and
samples are collected

Table 16: Positive Impacts of geotechnical activities

Activity Environmental impact

Site clearing 1. Gets rid of organisms like scorpions and snakes that are
potentially harmful to the student and staff population by
destroying their habitat

29
9.0 CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION

From the preliminary site investigation, it was quickly realized that the soil was weak and there
would need to be improvement. From Atterberg limit tests, the liquid limit of the soil in trial pit 1
between 0.18m to 0.84m was determined to be 26.61%, and for trial pit 2, liquid limits were
determined to be 22.4% and 23.08 % for 0m to 0.49m and 0.49m to 1m below the soil surface
respectively which are fairly low water contents for the soil to start behaving like a liquid. Also,
we can infer from the DCP tests although incomplete that the soil has low strength with CBR of
the first layer between 2% and 8% and that of the second layer being between 2% and 6%.

Based on this realization, soil form Consar Quarry has been selected to be used for to replace the
first 1m of soil on site where the road and laboratory building will be. This will provide additional
strength for the subgrade however, it is not enough to support the structural loads. As a result, pile
foundations will be constructed to a total depth of 9m below the surface where per my analysis
will be adequate enough to support the maximum column load of 3.5MN. The piles will also help
to resist uplift and overturning forces that may be induced by water pressure underground.

The borrow pit at Bonwire will serve as the main source of materials for construction of roads and
mixing of concrete for buildings.

I recommend that piles are cast in-situ rather than driven to prevent excess noise and also to
minimize disturbance to the soil.

Due to the high-water table, I recommend the use of geotextiles at the maximum height of water
to prevent seepage of water to the surface.

30
11.0 APPENDIX

Appendix A – Formulas
𝐷
❖ Coefficient of uniformity, 𝐶𝑢 = 𝐷60
10

(𝐷30 )2
❖ Coefficient of gradation, 𝐶𝑐 = 𝐷
60 ×𝐷10

❖ Ultimate load capacity of a single pile, 𝑃𝑢 = 𝑃𝑏𝑢 + 𝑃𝑠𝑢 − 𝑊

❖ Ultimate base capacity of a single pile, 𝑃𝑏𝑢 = 𝐴𝑏 (𝑐𝑁𝑐 + 𝜎𝑣 𝑁𝑞 + 0.5𝐵𝛾𝑁𝛾 )
1 5
❖ Ultimate shaft resistance of a single pile, 𝑃𝑠𝑢 = ∑ 𝐶 [∫0 𝛼𝐶𝑢 + ∫1 𝛼𝐶𝑢 ]

❖ Allowable load capacity of a pile group, 𝑃𝑔 = 𝜀 × 𝑚 × 𝑛 × 𝑃𝑎

31
Appendix B – SPT Borehole results

BH1
Overburden
Depth (m) SPT n-values Cn Ce Cb Cs Cr Ncor
Pressure in kN/m2
1 9 18.00 2.0000 0.6 1.05 1.2 0.95 13
2 2 36.00 1.6313 0.6 1.05 1 0.95 2
3 3 42.19 1.5069 0.6 1.05 1 0.95 3
5.12 12 57.88 1.2865 0.6 1.05 1.2 0.95 11
6 8 64.76 1.2163 0.6 1.05 1 0.95 6
7.5 9 77.05 1.1151 0.6 1.05 1 0.95 6

BH2
Overburden
Depth (m) SPT n-values Cn Ce Cb Cs Cr Ncor
Pressure in kN/m2
1 12 18.00 2.0000 0.6 1.05 1 0.95 14
2 3 26.19 1.9126 0.6 1.05 1 0.95 3
3 4 28.67 1.8280 0.6 1.05 1.2 0.95 5
4.5 5 37.95 1.5888 0.6 1.05 1.2 0.95 6
6 11 44.24 1.4716 0.6 1.05 1.2 0.95 12
7.5 7 56.52 1.3019 0.6 1.05 1.2 0.95 7

BH3
Overburden
Depth (m) SPT n-values Cn Ce Cb Cs Cr Ncor
Pressure in kN/m2
1 12 18.00 2.0000 0.6 1.05 1 0.95 14
2 3 36.00 1.6313 0.6 1.05 1 0.95 3
3 4 54.00 1.3319 0.6 1.05 1.2 0.95 4
4.5 5 63.29 1.2303 0.6 1.05 1 0.95 4
6 11 72.57 1.1490 0.6 1.05 1.2 0.95 9
7.5 7 81.86 1.0818 0.6 1.05 1.2 0.95 5

32
 BH4
Overburden
Depth (m) SPT n-values Cn Ce Cb Cs Cr Ncor
Pressure in kN/m2
1 12 18.00 2.0000 0.6 1.05 1.2 0.95 17
2 3 36.00 1.6313 0.6 1.05 1 0.95 3
3 4 53.60 1.3369 0.6 1.05 1.2 0.95 4
4.5 5 62.89 1.2342 0.6 1.05 1 0.95 4
6 11 78.67 1.1035 0.6 1.05 1.2 0.95 9
7.5 7 95.46 1.0018 0.6 1.05 1.2 0.95 5

BH5

Overburden
Depth (m) SPT n-values Cn Ce Cb Cs Cr Ncor
Pressure in kN/m2

1 12 18.00 2.0000 0.6 1.05 1 0.95 14

2 3 36.00 1.6313 0.6 1.05 1.2 0.95 4
3 4 54.00 1.3319 0.6 1.05 1 0.95 3
4.5 5 85.50 1.0585 0.6 1.05 1.2 0.95 4
6 11 103.39 0.9626 0.6 1.05 1.2 0.95 8
7.5 7 115.68 0.9100 0.6 1.05 1 0.95 4

33
Appendix C – Compaction Curves

Pit 1 Layer 2
1.000

0.900
2198Kg/m3
0.800

0.700

0.600

0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000 8.78%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Pit 1 Layer 3
1.000
0.900 2095Kg/m3
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000 9.85%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

34
Appendix D

Figure 11: Grading Curve for 20mm Chippings

Figure 12: Grading Curve for 14mm Chippings

35
Figure 13: Grading curve for 10mm chippings

36